Bangalore District Court
Sri. S. Narayana Gowda vs Sri. K. N. Raghavendra on 2 September, 2021
1
C.C.No.5097/2017 J
THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Dated: This the 02nd day of September, 2021
Present: Sri.S.B.HANDRAL, B.Sc., L.L.B(SPL).,
XVI Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru City.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.5097/2017
Complainant : Sri. S. Narayana Gowda,
S/o Late Shivanne Gowda,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at No.69, 'Nele', 2nd Cross,
4th Main, CTA,
BSK III Stage,
Bangalore - 560 085.
Rep. by Sri. H. Manjunath and
others Adv.,)
Vs
Accused : Sri. K. N. Raghavendra,
S/o K.O. Nagesh,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Didaga Village,
Opp to Canara Bank,
Hirisave Hobli,
Chennarayapatna (Taluk),
Hassan District - 573 141.
(Rep. by Sri. B. K. Devaraju Adv.,)
Case instituted : 28.01.2017
Offence complained : U/s 138 of N.I Act
of
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
2
C.C.No.5097/2017 J
Final Order : Conviction
Date of order : 02.09.2021
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that, the accused being well known to him and the accused approached him and offered to sale the immovable property bearing Sy.No.20/P1, measuring 4 acres, situated at Gowdahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District is available for sale belongs to his relatives namely Sri. Narayanappa, Sri. Venkatesh, Smt. Kamalamma, Smt. Jayamma, Smt. Nagamma and Sri. Hanumanthaiah for a sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/ and accused is a mediator for the said sale transaction. It is further contended by the complainant that, the accused sought a sum of Rs.8 lakhs towards the advance amount from him for negotiating the necessary talks with the land lords stating that, they are his relatives and he is taking care of their interest as they are illiterate and for completing the sale transaction sought for earnest 3 C.C.No.5097/2017 J money of Rs.12 lakhs payable to the land lords on the date of execution of the regular agreement of sale in his favour and the said transaction taken place on 1st and 2nd of April 2015. It is further contended by the complainant that, he agreed to purchase the above said property through accused and arranged the amount of Rs.8 lakhs as on the said day, sufficient funds available to him in his savings bank account maintained in the Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Branch, Bangalore i.e., an amount of Rs.8,41,415/ available in his account as on 06.04.2015 out of which he has paid an amount of Rs.6 lakhs by way of cheque and also paid Rs.2 lakhs by way of cheque bearing No.00077 dated 07.04.2015 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Branch, Bangalore to the accused and the accused has encashed the said amounts on 07.04.2015 and 11.04.2015 respectively. It is further contended by the complainant that, on 06.04.2015 accused got executed the Deed of Confirmation of the earnest money in his favour by agreeing to secure the regular register sale agreement through his relatives / landlords and got issued the post dated cheque bearing No.541003, dated 03.12.2016 drawn on M/s Canara Bank, Didaga - 573 141, 4 C.C.No.5097/2017 J Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District in his favour and also agreed that, in the event of failure of landlords i.e., Smt. Obbavva to come forward to execute the regular sale agreement, the said cheque may be presented for clearing and he is at liberty to recover the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs.8 lakhs from 06.04.2015 i.e., date of confirmation deed.
3. It is further contended by the complainant that, subsequent to borrowing the amount of Rs.8 lakhs by the accused and thereafter on 10.10.2015 accused sought further advance amount of Rs.1 lakh and on the same day it was paid to accused by way of cash, thereafter receipt of Rs.9 lakhs the accused did not turned back to comply his obligations and brought the land lords for executing the regular sale agreement and to show ready and willingness to perform his part of contract, but he went on postponing the issue on one or other pretext and unable to execute the regular sale deed by the landlords, finally the accused instructed him to present the cheque bearing No.541003 dated 03.12.2016 drawn on M/s Canara Bank, Didaga 573141, Channarayapatna Taluk for a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the bank. It is further contended by the 5 C.C.No.5097/2017 J complainant that, as per the instructions, he got presented the said cheque on 03.12.2016 through his banker i.e., M/S Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheque was returned dishonored from the banker on 06.12.2016 with endorsement "Funds Insufficient', thereafter he got issued a legal notice on 30.12.2016 by way of RPAD seeking the accused to comply the said demand within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice, but the said notice was returned back with an endorsement "Addressee Left Without Instructions" dated 04.01.2017. It is further contended by the complainant that, the legal notice was sent to the address furnished by the accused and the accused knowing the details of cheque is dishonored deliberately has left place of his address just to avoid the service of legal notice and the act of the accused is nothing but cheating to him. Hence the complainant has filed this present complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Before issuing process against the accused, the Complainant has filed his affidavitinlieu of his sworn statement, in which, he has reiterated the 6 C.C.No.5097/2017 J averments of the complaint. In support of his sworn statement, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.13 i.e, original Cheque bearing No.541003 dated:03.12.2016 as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 is that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), Bank challan as per Ex.C.2, Bank Memo as per Ex.C.3, the office copy of the Legal Notice as per Ex.C.4, the postal receipt as per Ex.C.5, returned Legal Notice as per Ex.C.6, Postal Cover as per Ex.C.7, Postal Receipt as per Ex.C.8, Postal Acknowledgment as per Ex.C.9, Original Deed of Confirmation of the Earnest Money as per Ex.C.10, the signatures on the said Ex.C.10 are those of the accused are marked as Ex.C.10(a) to Ex.C.10(c), Bank Pass Book as per Ex.C.11, Certified copies of cheques as per Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13, signatures and mobile numbers in the back side of the cheques are marked as Ex.C.12(a) and Ex.C.13(a) respectively. The complainant has also examined Manager of Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Ist Stage, Bangalore by name Sri. Manjunath B. R. as PW2 on his behalf.
5. Primafacie case has been made out against the accused and summons was issued against the accused in turn he has appeared before the court 7 C.C.No.5097/2017 J and got enlarged on bail and the substance of the accusation has been read over to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
6. In view of the principles of law laid down and as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of the Indian Bank Association Vs., Union of India, reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590, after recording the plea of the accused, as he intended to set out his defence, and the case was posted for cross examination of complainant and PW2 and complainant has closed his side.
7. Thereafter, the statement of the accused as required under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. has been recorded. he has denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and has chosen to lead his rebuttal evidence, subsequently the accused himself examined as DW1 and he has relied upon the documentary evidence i.e., Certified copy of Sale Deed as per Ex.D.1 and closed his side.
8. Heard the arguments by learned counsel for the complainant and perused the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the accused and materials on record.
8C.C.No.5097/2017 J
9. On the basis of complaint, evidence of complainant and documents and having heard the arguments of both learned counsels for the complainant and the accused, the following points that are arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proves that the accused has issued cheque bearing No.541003 dated 03.12.2016 drawn on M/s Canara Bank, Didaga 573141, Channarayapatna Taluk for a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to discharge legally recoverable debt to the complainant and when the complainant has presented the above said cheque for encashment through his banker but the said cheques have been dishonoured for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" on 27.07.2017 and the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 09.08.2017 and inspite of it the accused has not paid the cheque amount within prescribed period there by the accused has committed an offence U/s.138 of the Negotiable instruments Act?
2. What Order?
10. The above points are answered as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2:As per final order for the following:9
C.C.No.5097/2017 J REASONS
11. Point No.1: Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings U/s.138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged U/s.118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be encashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act presupposes three conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:
1. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue or before expiry of its validity.
2. The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within 10 C.C.No.5097/2017 J one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and
3. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.
If the above said three conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause action to launch prosecution against the drawer of the bounced cheque and as per Sec.142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.
12. It is also one of the essential ingredients of Sec. 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or liability. Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e., U/s.118 a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable Instrument. Even Sec.139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable 11 C.C.No.5097/2017 J instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in catena of decisions.
13. In the present case the complainant got examined as PW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the entire averments of the complaint and in his evidence testified that, the accused being well known to him and the accused approached him and offered to sale the immovable property bearing Sy.No.20/P1, measuring 4 acres, situated at Gowdahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District is available for sale belongs to his relatives namely Sri. Narayanappa, Sri. Venkatesh, Smt. Kamalamma, Smt. Jayamma, Smt. Nagamma and Sri. Hanumanthaiah for a sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/ and accused is a mediator for the said sale transaction. The complainant / PW1 further testified that, the accused sought a sum of Rs.8 lakhs towards the advance amount from him for negotiating the necessary talks with the land lords stating that, they are his relatives and he is taking care of their interest as they are illiterate and for completing the 12 C.C.No.5097/2017 J sale transaction sought for earnest money of Rs.12 lakhs payable to the land lords on execution of the regular agreement of sale in his favour and the said transaction taken place on 1st and 2nd of April 2015. The complainant / PW1 further testified that, he agreed to purchase the above said property through accused and arranged the amount i.e., Rs.8 lakhs as sufficient funds available to him in his savings bank account maintained in the Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Branch, Bangalore i.e., an amount of Rs.8,41,415/ available in his account as on 06.04.2015 out of which he has paid an amount of Rs.6 lakhs by way of cheque and also paid Rs.2 lakhs by way of cheque bearing No.00077 dated 07.04.2015 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Branch, Bangalore and the accused has encashed the said amounts on 07.04.2015 and 11.04.2015 respectively. The complainant / PW1 further testified that, on 06.04.2015 accused got executed the Deed of Confirmation of the earnest money in his favour by agreeing to secure the regular register sale agreement through his relatives / landlords and got issued the post dated cheque bearing No.541003, dated 03.12.2016 drawn on M/s Canara Bank, Didaga, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District in 13 C.C.No.5097/2017 J his favour and also agreed that, in the event of failure of landlords i.e., Lrs of Smt. Obbavva to come forward to execute the regular sale agreement, the said cheque may be presented for clearing and he is at liberty to recover the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs.8 lakhs from 06.04.2015 i.e., date of confirmation deed.
14. The complainant / PW1 further testified that, subsequent to borrowing the amount of Rs.8 lakhs by the accused and thereafter on 10.10.2015 accused sought further advance amount of Rs.1 lakh and the same day it was paid by way of cash, thereafter receipt of Rs.9 lakhs the accused did not turned back to comply his obligations and brought the land lords for executing the regular sale agreement and to show ready and willingness to perform his part of contract, but he went on postponing the issue on one or other pretext and unable to get executed the regular sale deed by the landlords, finally the accused instructed him to present the cheque bearing No.541003 dated 03.12.2016 drawn on M/s Canara Bank, Didaga 573141, Channarayapatna Taluk for a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the bank. The complainant / PW1 further testified that, as per the instructions, he got 14 C.C.No.5097/2017 J presented the said cheque on 03.12.2016 through his banker i.e., M/S Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Branch, Bengaluru, but the said cheque was returned dishonored from the banker on 06.12.2016 with endorsement "Funds Insufficient', thereafter he got issued a legal notice on 30.12.2016 by way of RPAD seeking the accused to comply the said demand within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice, but the said notice was returned back with an endorsement "Addressee Left Without Instructions" dated 04.01.2017. The complainant / PW1 further testified that, the legal notice was sent to the address furnished by the accused and the accused knowing the details of cheque is dishonored deliberately has left place of his address just to avoid the service of legal notice and the act of the accused is nothing but cheating to him.
15. In support of oral evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence as per Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.13 i.e, original Cheque bearing No.541003 dated:03.12.2016 as per Ex.C.1, the signature on the said cheque identified by P.W.1 is that of the accused as per Ex.C.1(a), Bank challan as per Ex.C.2, Bank Memo as per Ex.C.3, the office copy of 15 C.C.No.5097/2017 J the Legal Notice as per Ex.C.4, the postal receipt as per Ex.C.5, returned Legal Notice as per Ex.C.6, Postal Cover as per Ex.C.7, Postal Receipt as per Ex.C.8, Postal Acknowledgment as per Ex.C.9, Original Deed of Confirmation of the Earnest Money as per Ex.C.10, the signatures on the said Ex.C.10 are thse of the accused are marked as Ex.C.10(a) to Ex.C.10(c), Bank Pass Book as per Ex.C.11, Certified copies of cheques as per Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13, signatures and mobile numbers in the back side of the cheques are marked as Ex.C.12(a) and Ex.C.13(a) respectively.
16. In the present case, there is no dispute between the complainant and Accused with regard to their acquaintance. It is also not disputed by the accused that, the cheque in question belongs to his account and signature found at Ex.C.1(a) is also that of his signature. The Accused has also not disputed that the cheque in dispute was presented for encashment and dishonored for the reason of "Funds Insufficient" vide bank endorsement dated:
06.12.2016 therefore as a matter on record and has been proved by producing bank memo i.e., Ex.C.3 issued by the concerned bank dated: 06.12.2016.
Therefore the complainant has proved that, the 16 C.C.No.5097/2017 J cheque in question i.e Ex.C.1 was presented within its validity period and dishonored as per bank endorsement issued by the banker of the Accused and the cheque in question belonging to the Accused account and signature of the Accused is at Ex.C.1(a).
17. In relation to the service of notice, the accused in his evidence has denied the service of notice upon him. The complainant in order to prove service of notice upon the Accused, has produced the documents i.e copy of the legal notice dated 30.12.2016, postal receipt, returned legal notice, returned RPAD Cover and receipt and postal acknowledgement which are at Ex.C.4 to C.9 respectively. On perusal of the Ex.C.7 i.e. the RPAD returned cover with an endorsement of "Addressee Left Without Instructions return to sender", hence, it goes to show that, the legal notice caused by the complainant through RPAD to the addresses of the Accused shown in the notice returned with postal endorsements of ""Addressee Left Without Instructions return to sender" dated 02.01.2017. The Accused during the course of crossexamination of complainant denied service of the notice, it is relevant here to mention that, the accused has not 17 C.C.No.5097/2017 J denied or disputed the address mentioned by the complainant in Ex.C.4 to Ex.P.9 and it is also not the defence of the accused that, the complainant by colluding with the postal authorities got created the endorsements on Ex.C.7 i.e., the endorsement made by the Postal Authorities as ""Addressee Left Without Instructions return to sender". If really the complainant got created the endorsement on Ex.C.7, definitely the accused would have proved the same by examining the concerned postal authorities, but no such efforts have been made by the accused, therefore mere denial of the endorsement issued by the postal authority it cannot be held that, the endorsement issued by the postal authority as per Ex.C.7 is got created by the complainant.
18. Hence from the above documentary evidence clearly goes to show that, the accused was residing in the address mentioned in the legal notice and RPAD cover. The accused has not produced any documents to disprove his address as shown by the complainant, in such circumstance it can be held that, the complainant has sent legal notice to the accused to his correct address and the said notice was came to be returned with an endorsement of 18 C.C.No.5097/2017 J ""Addressee Left Without Instructions return to sender". In addition to that, the accused during the course of his crossexamination has categorically admitted that, he is residing in Didaga Village, Hiresave Hobli, Chennarayapattana Taluk, Hasana District and also admitted that, his address shown in the cause title of the complaint and Ex.C.7 i.e., RPAD cover are correct. Hence it goes to show that, the accused has clearly admitted that, the address shown by the complainant in the cause title of the complaint and on Ex.C.7 is his correct address, therefore in view of the admission of the accused makes it clear that, the legal notice caused by the complainant to his correct address and sent through registered post, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the notice sent by the complainant to the correct address of the Accused is presumed to have been served on him U/s. 27 of General Clauses Act. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2011 ACD 1572 (KAR) in the case of Jayamma Vs. Lingamma, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, "Notice sent at correct address returned unclaimed - is deemed to be served. In another 19 C.C.No.5097/2017 J decision reported in 1998 KAR 1841 in the case of Shridhar M.A. Vs. Metalloy Steel Corporation and 1999 Cri.L.J. 4606 "K. Bhaskaran Vs. Vaidhanbalan wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was concerned with the question as to when the service of notice could be inferred and it was held that if there is an endorsement like 'not available in the house' 'house locked' 'shop closed' 'unclaimed' the service should be deemed to have been effected. It is also relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2008(4) Civil code cases 027 (SC) "M/s. Indo Automobiles Vs., M/s. Jai Durga Enterprises and others." wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement to a correct addressservice of notice has to be presumed". Therefore in view of the principles of law in the above decisions, it can be safely held that, the service of notice on accused in this case is presumed to have been served on him since in this case also the complainant has issued notice to the accused to his correct address through registered post and the said notice was returned with an 20 C.C.No.5097/2017 J endorsement of ""Addressee Left Without Instructions return to sender"", hence the notice issued by the complainant through registered post is held to be proper. In addition to that, it is relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3578 in the case of C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " the drawer of the cheque is permitted to deposit the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of his appearance before the court in pursuance of the service of summons on him and in such situation, his defence of non service of the legal notice cannot be available to him'. Hence, in view of the said principles of law, even for sake of discussion, though there is no cogent and reliable documentary proof to substantiate the claim of the complainant with regard to address of the Accused to show there is due service of the legal notice on the Accused, in view of settled position of law by virtue of the above said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the Accused is not entitled to the technical defence of the alleged non service of the legal notice. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the learned 21 C.C.No.5097/2017 J counsel for the accused that, the notice issued by the complainant was not served on the accused and the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138(b) of N.I.Act and complaint is not maintainable cannot be acceptable and are not sustainable in law.
19. It is the specific claim of the complainant that, accused being a mediator and offered him to sale the immovable property of his relatives bearing Sy.No.20/P1 measuring 4 acres for sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/ for which he agreed to purchase the said land and the accused sought a sum of Rs.8 lakhs towards advance amount from him for negotiation of the sale transaction with the land owners as they are his relatives and he is taking care of their interest as they are illiterates . It is also the claim of the complainant that, for completing the sale transaction the owners of the land have sought for earnest money of Rs.12 lakhs and the said amount payable to them on execution of the regular agreement of sale in his favour. It is also the claim of the complainant that, he was having sufficient funds in his bank account maintained in Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Branch, Bangalore as on 06.04.2015 i.e., Rs.8,41,415/ and has paid an amount of Rs.6 22 C.C.No.5097/2017 J lakhs by way of cheque and also paid an amount of Rs.2 lakhs by way of cheque bearing No.00077 dated 07.04.2015 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Branch, Bangalore and accused had encashed the said cheques on 07.04.2015 and 11.04.2015 and on 06.04.2015 the accused got executed the deed of confirmation of earnest money in his favour by agreeing to get the regular sale agreement by the landlords and got issued the postdated cheque i.e., Ex.C.1 in question for sum of Rs.8 lakhs in his favour agreeing that, in the event of failure of the landlords to come forward to execute the regular agreement the said cheque may be presented for clearing and he is also at liberty to recover interest at the rate of 15% p.m. on the amount of Rs.8 lakhs from 06.04.2015 i.e., the date of confirmation of deed. It is also the claim of the complainant that, subsequent to borrowing the amount of Rs.8 lakhs the accused on 10.10.2015 sought for further advance amount of Rs.1 lakh and the said amount was paid on the very day by way of cash to the accused.
20. The accused in his defence has admitted that, the complainant had agreed to purchase the land bearing Sy.No.20/P1 measuring 4 acres 23 C.C.No.5097/2017 J situated at Gowdahalli, Nelamangala Taluk which is belongs to his relatives for a sale consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000/. It is the specific defence of the accused that, he has not received the amount of Rs.6 lakhs and 2 lakhs through the cheques from the complainant and has also not received an amount of Rs.1 lakh by way of cash from the complainant and had not issued the cheque in question towards repayment of the alleged transaction in question in favour of the complainant. It is also the defence of the accused that, the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.6 lakhs and 2 lakhs through the cheques in his name to pay the same to the concerned authorities for the purpose of rectification of the land records and also had taken his blank signed cheque and two signed blank stamp papers towards security of the sale transaction in question. Hence it goes to show that, the accused has denied the receipt of Rs.8 lakhs by way of cheques from the complainant and also Rs.1 lakh by way of cash and also issuance of the cheque in question to the complainant towards discharge of the said amount.
21. In order to prove the claim of the complainant he has produced the original 24 C.C.No.5097/2017 J confirmation of earnest money deed which is at Ex.C.10 and the signature of the accused are marked as Ex.C.10(a) to Ex.C.10(c). The perusal of the contents of the Ex.C.10 it appears that, the accused has executed the Ex.C.10 in favour of the complainant on 06.04.2015 by admitting that, he has received a sum of Rs.8 lakhs by way of cheque bearing No.000076 dated 07.04.2015 and 000077 both cheques were drawn on Bank of Baroda, Srinivasa Nagar, Bangalore towards the earnest money of the schedule property sold by Smt. Obbavva since dead by her legal heirs by name Narayanappa, Sri. Venkatesha, Smt. Kamalamma, Smt. Jayamma, Smt. Nagamma and Sri. Hanumanthaiah, as they agreed to execute proper regular agreement of sale and at the time of execution of the registered agreement of sale the complainant agreed to pay sum of Rs.12 lakhs to the Lrs of Smt. Obbavva and the accused is also agreed that, in the event of failure of himself and legal heirs of deceased Smt. Obbavva to come forward to execute the registered sale agreement, the accused had given postdated cheque i.e., cheque in question in favour of the complainant and agreed to pay interest at rate of 15% p.a. on the amount of Rs.8 25 C.C.No.5097/2017 J lakhs from the date of confirmation deed. It is also seen from the last page of the agreement that, the accused has received an amount of Rs.1 lakh by the complainant by way of cash on 10.05.2015 as further advance amount in respect of the proposed agreement of sale as shown in Ex.C.10 and has also signed to the receipt of further advance amount of Rs.1 lakh and the said signature marked as Ex.C.10(c). The accused in his defence has denied the execution of Ex.C.10 and receipt of Rs.9 lakhs by way of two cheques and cash from the complainant as stated in Ex.C.10 and also denied the issuance of cheque in question in favour of the complainant, by contending that, the complainant had collected his one blank signed cheque and two blank signed stamp papers as security towards the sale transaction between him and the landlords. But the accused during the course of his crossexamination has categorically admitted that, "ಸದರ ಜವವವನಗ ನ ಹಹರತವಪಡಸ ನನನ ಮತವತ ಸಸಬಸದಸದಸತ ನಸ10 ದಖಲಯನವ ಪರರರದದರರ ನಡವವ ಬವರ ರವದವ ದಖಲರಗಲಲ .
ನಸ10 ಮದಲನವ ಪಟದ ಕಳ ಭಗಗದಲರವವ ಹಗಹ ಸದರ
ದಖಲಯಲ 3 ಮತವತ 4 ನವ ಪಟಗಳಲರವವ ಸಹಗಳವ ನನನ
ದ
ಸಹಗಳಗದವ ಸದರ ದಖಲಯ ಮದಲನ ಪಟದ ಮವಲ
26
C.C.No.5097/2017 J
ಭಗದಲರವವ ಸಹ ನನನ ದಲಲ . ನಸ10 ದಖಲಯಲ ಸಕಯವ ತನನ ಸಹಗಳನವ ನ ಗವರವತಸದ ಮಹರವ ಸಹಗಳನವ ನ ಕ ಕಮವಗ ನಸ10 ಎ ರಸದ ನಸ10 ಸ ಎಸದವ ಗವರವತಸಲಯತವ. ನನನ ಪ ಪ ಕರ ನನವ ಪರರರದದರರಗ ಎರಡವ ಖಲ ಛಪ ಕಗದದ ಮವಲ ಹಗಹ ಒಸದವ ಚಕಗ ಕವವಲ ನನನ ಸಹಗಳನವ ನ ಮಡಕಹಟಟದ ಎಸದವ ಹವಳಲದ 2 ಛಪ ಕಗದಗಳವ ನಸ10 ದಖಲಗ ಸಸಬಸಧಪಟಟ ನ ವದವ ನನಗ ನನಪಲಲ . Hence, the said ಛವ ಕಗದಗಳವ? ಎನವ admissions of the accused clearly goes to show that, he has categorically admitted that, except the Ex.C.10 document no other documents have been executed between him and the complainant in respect of the land in question and also admitted his signatures on Ex.C.10 i.e., the said signatures are found at Ex.C.10(a) to Ex.C.10(c). It is also important here to mention that, a specific question was posed to the accused as to whether the stamp papers which are at Ex.C.10 used are the blank signed stamp papers as contended by him in his defence, but the accused has not denied the said question, therefore the conduct of the accused in nondenial of the said suggestion may leads to draw an adverse inference against the accused that, in order to deny the execution of Ex.C.10 the accused has taken defence that, complainant had collected 27 C.C.No.5097/2017 J his two signed blank stamp papers, but not other than that, therefore the accused in his cross examination clearly admitted the execution of Ex.C.10 in favour of the complainant and also admitted his signatures found on the Ex.C.10 which are at Ex.C.10(a) to Ex.C.10(c).
22. Further at page No.6 of this cross examination admitted that, "ನನವ ನಸ10 ರಸತ ಪರರದ ದರರ ಹಸರಗ ಅಗಪ ಮ ಸಟ ಮಡಕಹಟವ ಟ ಅದರ ಸಸಬಸಧ ಆತನ ಹಸರಗ ವವದತ ಚಕಕ ನವ ನ ಪವಸಟ ಡವಟಡಚಕಕಗ ಕಹಟಟದ ನವ. ಇದವ ಕರಣಕಕಗ ನನವ ಪರರರದದರರಗ ರವದವ ಜವಬವ ನ ವದವ ಹಗಹ ಇದವವರಗಹ ಆತನ ವರವದದ ನ ಕಹಟಟಲಲ ಎನವ ನಹವಟಸನವ ರವದವ ಕ ಕ ಮ ಕಕಗಹಡಸಲಲ ಎನವ ನ ವದವ ನಜ." Hence the said admissions of the accused makes it clear that, the accused has categorically admitted that, he has executed an agreement as per Ex.C.10 in favour of the complainant and also admitted the issuance of postdated cheque to the complainant under the said agreement and also admitted that, he has not taken any action against the complainant and has not given reply to the notice of the complainant since for the said reason. Therefore the accused though he has denied the execution of Ex.C.10 and receipt of Rs.8 lakhs by way of two cheques and also received 28 C.C.No.5097/2017 J an amount of Rs.1 lakh by way of cash on 10.05.2015 and in total has received an amount of Rs.9 lakhs from the complainant and issuance of postdated cheque in favour of the complainant, but has specifically and categorically admitted that he has executed the agreement as per Ex.C.10 and issued postdated cheque under the said agreement in favour of the complainant. Hence the complainant proved that, the accused has executed Ex.C.10 Deed of Confirmation on 06.04.2015 by receiving the earnest money of Rs.8 lakhs and also paid an amount of Rs.1 lakh by way of cash on 10.05.2015 to the accused and the accused has acknowledged the receipt of said amount on the last page of the agreement and to that effect the signature of the accused marked as Ex.C.10(c) and the accused has also issued the postdated cheque i.e., Ex.C.1 in his favour under the said agreement.
23. It is also the defence of the accused that, he has not received Rs.8 lakhs from the complainant by way of two cheques and an amount of Rs1. Lakh by way of cash from the complainant and has taken specific defence that, the complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.6 lakhs and 2 lakhs through cheques in his name so as to pay the same 29 C.C.No.5097/2017 J to the concerned authorities for the purpose of rectification of the land records. The complainant in order to prove his claim has produced his bank pass book which is at Ex.C.11 and certified copies of the cheques bearing numbers (1) 000076 dated 07.04.2015 for sum of Rs.6 lakhs and (2) 000077 dated 11.04.2015 for sum of Rs.2 lakhs which are at Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 and signatures of the accused are marked as Ex.C.12(a) and Ex.C.13(a) respectively. On careful perusal of the Ex.C.11 pass book and relevant entires dated 07.04.2015 and 11.04.2015 in the said pass book it goes to show that, an amount of Rs.6 lakhs was paid to the accused through cheque bearing No.76 on 07.04.2015 and an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was paid to the accused through cheque bearing No.77 on 11.04.2015 and the said cheques have been encashed. It is also seen from the Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 it appears that, the complainant has issued cheques bearing numbers (1) 000076 dated 07.04.2015 for sum of Rs.6 lakhs and (2) 000077 dated 11.04.2015 for sum of Rs.2 lakhs in favour of the accused and the signatures of the accused were also found on the hind side of the Ex.C..12 and Ex.C.13 respectively. The accused has not denied 30 C.C.No.5097/2017 J the issuance of cheques i.e., Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 in his name, but he contended that, the amounts shown in the cheques were drawn by the complainant on his behalf and he has not withdrawn the said amount, In this regard except oral denial or defence nothing has been produced before the court to show that, the amounts mentioned in Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 cheuqes were withdrawn by the complainant himself, therefore only the oral denial of the accused is not sufficient to hold that, the accused has proved his defence i.e., the complainant had withdrawn the amounts shown in the cheques i.e., Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13.
24. In this regard the complainant has examined the concerned bank manager i.e., Sri. Manjunath B. R. Manager of Bank of Baroda, Banashankari Ist Stage, Bengaluru as PW2. The PW2 in his evidence deposed that, he is working as chief Manager in Bank of Baroda, Bangashankari Ist Stage, Bangalore since 21.08.2019 and he appeared before the court to given evidence and produce the cheques bearing No.000076 dated 07.04.2015 for sum of Rs.6 lakhs and 000077 dated 11.04.2015 for sum of Rs.2 lakhs accordingly he has produced the said original cheques alongwith the true copies of 31 C.C.No.5097/2017 J the same and after comparison of the true copies with the original cheques, the true copies of the cheques have been marked as Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 and the Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 are the bearer cheques and the original cheques have been returned to the PW2. The PW2 has also stated that, generally the amounts mentioned in the barer cheques will be withdrawn by the person in which whose name barer cheques contained and at the time of drawing the amount the signature of the person to whome the barer cheques have been issued will be taken for the purpose of confirmation and his phone number will also be collected in the hind side of the barer cheque. In the present case the signature of the person and his phone number have been mentioned on the hind side of the Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13.
25. The PW2 has been cross examined in length by the accused but the accused has not disputed that, Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 are the barer cheques and the name of the accused found in said cheques and also not disputed the cheques which have been presented to the bank and the amounts mentioned in Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 have been encashed from the bank and signature and cell numbers found on hind side of cheques not 32 C.C.No.5097/2017 J disputed. The accused has elicited from PW2 that, as on the date of presentation of the Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 he was not working in the said branch, but the PW2 specifically stated that, he is stating on the basis of the documents that who had withdrawn the amount by presenting Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13. It is suggested that, before releasing the amount when the barer cheques have been produced for encashment confirmation will be made by calling upon the drawer of the cheque and also by taking the Aadhar card or election ID card of the person who has presented the barer cheque, but the PW2 stated that, generally the signature of the person will be taken who has presented the cheques for encashment. PW2 has denied the suggestions made to him that, the accused did not approached the bank and presented the cheques i.e., Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 and withdrawn the amount and he is deposing falsely in order to support the complaint. Hence, on careful perusal of the entire cross examination of PW2 the accused has not elicited any thing to disbelieve the evidence of PW2, on the contrary the evidence of PW2 inspires confidence of the court that, the Ex.C12 and Ex.C.13 have been presented by the accused and encashed the amount 33 C.C.No.5097/2017 J mentioned therein.
26. Therefore from careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant I,e., Ex.C10, Ex.C.11, Ex.C.12 and Ex.C.13 and coupled with the evidence of PW2 makes it clear that, the complainant has proved that, he has paid an amount of Rs.8 lakhs to the accused by way of two cheques i.e., an amount of Rs.6 lakhs paid through cheque bearing No.000076 dated 07.04.2015 for sum of Rs.6 lakhs i.e., as per Ex.C.12 and as per Ex.C.13 an amount of Rs.2 lakhs paid through cheque bearing No.000077 dated 11.04.2015 and an amount of Rs.1 lakh has been paid by way of cash to the accused towards earnest money in respect to get the regular sale agreement from the relatives of the accused i.e., landlords in respect of the schedule land as shown in the Ex.C.10.
27. It is also relevant here to mention that, the accused has cross examined the PW1 in length, but nothing has been elicited during the course of cross examination of the PW1 to believe his defence that, he has issued a blank signed cheque and two blank signed stamp papers to the complainant towards security of the sale transaction in question and he 34 C.C.No.5097/2017 J has not received an amount of Rs.8 lakhs by way of two cheques and Rs.1 lakh by way of cash from the complainant. On the contrary the complainant has denied the suggestions made to him that, he have withdrawn the amount of Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs through the cheques in his name so has to pay the same to the concerned authorities for the purpose of rectification of the landlords and also denied the suggestions that, at the time of preparation of the Ex.C.10 the accused was not present and the said document was prepared only at his instruction from his counsel. The learned counsel for the accused instead of eliciting materials from the PW1 has more concentrated on the point of the complainant is not ready and willing to get the regular sale agreement from the land owners and though he was agreed to get the rectification of the records pertaining to the schedule land in question, has not made any efforts to get the rectification of the documents from the concerned authorities and get the regular sale agreement from the owners of the scheduled land, but in this regard whatever the suggestions made by the accused have been stoutly denied by the PW1 and also denied that, he had collected the cheque in dispute from the accused only for security purpose 35 C.C.No.5097/2017 J and not for the purpose of any contractual obligation. Therefore the accused has miserably failed to elicited anything to disbelieve or discard the evidence of PW1. Therefore for the above said reasons the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused in para No.3 at page No.4 and 5 with regard to the execution of Ex.C.10 and issuance of cheque in question cannot be acceptable one.
28. It is also relevant here to mention that, as it is already stated in the above that, the accused during the course of his crossexamination has admitted that, he has executed agreement as per Ex.C.10 and issued postdated cheque i.e., cheque in question in favour of the complainant and except the said document no other documents have been executed in between him and the complainant and also admitted his signatures on Ex.C.10 which are Ex.C.10(a) to Ex.C.10(c) and also admitted that, he had not taken any action against the complainant or given reply to the notice issued by the complainant, since he had executed Ex.C.10 in favour of the complainant and issued the cheque in question as postdated cheque to the complainant. The accused has also admitted that, the cheque in question i.e., 36 C.C.No.5097/2017 J Ex.C.1 belongs to his account and signature found at Ex.C.10 is that of his signature. It is also proved by the complainant that, the cheque in question was presented within its validity period and it was dishonoured for the reason of "Funds Insufficient"
as per Ex.C.3 and thereafter the legal notice caused by him through RPAD as per Ex.C.4 was presumed to have been served on him as per entry made on Ex.C.7 and Accused has not given any reply to the legal notice, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the complainant has discharged his initial burden by complying the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I. Act and initial presumptions are available in favour of the complainant U/s.118a and 139 of the N.I.Act. Consequently it is for the Accused to rebut the said presumptions available in favour of the complainant to show that, the cheque in question was not issued either to the complainant or towards discharge of any legally recoverable debt by producing cogent and convincible evidence but not mere suggestions or even by plausible explanation. In such circumstances, when the presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act are available to the complainant, even a presumption can be drawn to the extent of existence of legally 37 C.C.No.5097/2017 J recoverable debt or liability against the Accused unless and until the said presumptions are rebutted by the Accused, even in the absence of documents produced by the complainant with regard to loan transaction in question.
29. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decisions reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to hold that issuance of cheque itself was adequate proof of existence of debt or liability. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India i.e. Hon'ble Three Judges Bench Decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 in the case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan ., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S.139 - Presumption under - scope of - Held, 38 C.C.No.5097/2017 J presumption mandated by S. 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability - However such presumption is rebuttable in nature - Criminal Trial - Proof - Presumptions - Generally. Further held that "Signature on the cheque was his, statutory presumption under S.139 comes into play and the same was not rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by complainant Appellant not able to prove "lost cheque" theory - Apart from not raising a probable defence appellant was also not able to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability - hence, his conviction by High Court, held, proper. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15032018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is further held that " When such a presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of 39 C.C.No.5097/2017 J documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. It is also held that, " the 40 C.C.No.5097/2017 J accused has failed to lead any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, a finding returned by both the Trial Court and High Court. Both courts not only erred in law but also committed perversity when the due amount is said to be disputed only on the account of discrepancy in the cartons, packing materials or the rate to determine the total liability as if the appellant was proving his debt before the civil court. Therefore it is presumed that, the cheque in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques received the same in existing debt". It is also held that, " the Trial court and the High Court proceeded as if, the appellant is to prove a debt before civil Court wherein, the plaintiff is required to prove his claim on the basis of evidence to be laid in support of his claim for the recovery of the amount due. A dishonour of cheque carries statutory presumption of consideration. The holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that, the cheque was issued by the 41 C.C.No.5097/2017 J Accused and that when the same presented , it was not honoured Since there is a statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the Accused to rebut the presumption that, the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability ". It is also relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2019 KAR 493 in the case of Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, the presumption mandated by Sec.139 of N.I Act includes the presumption that, there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability, however such presumption is rebuttable in nature". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Shri.V.R.Shresti Vs. Shri. Bhaskara.P. in Crl. Appeal No. 2109/2017 dated: 15.10.2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "the Accused has not given any reply to the notice and also in the crossexamination, he categorically admits that, the cheque has bounced on account of no sufficient fund in the bank account of the Accused. Mere non 42 C.C.No.5097/2017 J producing of the document before the court with regard to the source of income to advance a loan is not a ground to dismiss the complaint. The Accused ought to have rebutted the contention of the complainant by producing cogent evidence before the court and mere denial is not enough". Therefore on careful reading of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and High Court of Karnataka in the above referred decisions makes it very clear that, once the holder in due course i.e. the complainant proved that, the cheque in question belongs to the drawer and signature appearing on the cheque is that of the drawer i.e., Accused and complied the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I.Act, presumptions U/s.118a and 139 of N.I.Act indeed does extend to the existence of legally recoverable debt and when such presumption is drawn the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence regarding source of funds were not of relevant unless the Accused rebutted the presumption available to the complainant as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and 43 C.C.No.5097/2017 J High Court of Karnataka in the above decisions. In the present case also the complainant has complied mandatory requirements and has proved that, the Accused has issued the cheque in question in his favour and the Accused has admitted the cheque belongs to him and signature appearing on the cheque is that of his signature and even after service of the notice, the Accused has not given any reply or complied the terms of the notice, in such circumstances, presumptions have to be drawn towards existence of legally enforceable debt as per Sec.139 of N.I.Act.
30. Therefore, for the above said reasons the defence taken by the Accused that, the complainant has failed to prove that, he has lent an amount of Rs.9 lakhs to the accused and the accused the accused has issued the cheque in question towards discharge of the said loan amount cannot be acceptable one. The defence taken by the Accused appears to be the complainant has to prove his claim by producing evidence as if it is required for proving of his debt before the Civil Court, but same cannot be permissible in a proceedings initiated U/s.138 of N.I. Act, as held by the Hon'ble Apex court of India in 44 C.C.No.5097/2017 J the above referred decision, therefore in view of the principles of law laid down in the above referred decisions it is presumed that, cheque in question was drawn for consideration as the Accused has admitted the cheque in question belongs to him and signature found on the cheque in question is also that of his signature. Therefore for the above said reasons the arguments canvased by the learned counsel for the accused at para No.3 in the written arguments cannot be acceptable one.
31. The learned counsel for the defence during the course of crossexamination of the complainant has elicited that, complainant has admitted that, he has not declared in his IT returns about the amount that he claim to have paid to the accused in respect of the transaction in question and complainant is an Income Tax Assessee both during his service as well as post retirement. It is true that, the complainant has admitted that, he has not declared the amount which he has paid to the accused in his Income tax returns, but that itself does not invalidates the transaction in question. In this regard, it is necessary here to refer the decision of our Hon'ble High court of Karnataka reported in 2019(1) Kar. L.R.185 in the case of Sri.Yogesh 45 C.C.No.5097/2017 J Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankara Bhat in the said case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 139 Endorsement 'payment stopped by drawer' - The trial court in the instant case, merely considered a suggestion made from the Accused side in the crossexamination of PW1 that the complainant was an income tax assessee and that he has not declared the alleged loan transaction in his returns and disbelieved the case of the complainant that too, ignoring that legal presumption under section 139 of the N.I. Act, was operating in favour of the complainant For these reasons, it has to be held that the complainant has beyond reasonable doubt proved the guilt of the Accused punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. As such, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside and respondent/Accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Hence in view of the principles of 46 C.C.No.5097/2017 J law laid down by the Hon'ble High court of India in the above referred decision in the present case also both the complainant admitted that, she has not produced his I.T. Returns documents but as it is already stated that, the complainant has discharged her primary burden by complying the mandatory provisions of Sec.138 of N.I. act, therefore it is for the accused to rebut the presumption existing infavour of the complainant U/s.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in view of non production of document could not by itself draw an adverse inference and to hold that, there was no existence of legally enforceable debt or the presumption as envisaged U/s.139 of N.I.Act is successfully rebutted by the accused. In another decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decided in C.R.R No.5263/2018 dated: 7.3.2019 in the case of Smt. Ragini Gupta Vs. Piyush Dutt Sharma Gwalior., wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, mere non filing of income tax return would not automatically dislodge the source of income of the complainant and non payment of income 47 C.C.No.5097/2017 J tax is a matter between the revenue and assessee and if the assessee has not disclosed his income in the income tax return, then the income tax department is well within its right to reopen the assessment of income of the assessee and to take action as per provisions of Income Tax Act, however non filing of income tax return by itself would not mean that, the complainant had no source of income and thus no adverse inference can be drawn in this regard only because of absence of income tax return. Hence in view of the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Madya Pradesh in the above said decision in the present case also though the complainant has admitted that, she has not produced the Income tax returns documents for the period of 2012 to 2015, but that itself would not automatically dislodge the source of income of the complainant. Therefore the admissions of the complainant which are elicited in his cross examination are not helpful for the accused to prove his defence that, in view of non disclosure of source of income of the complainant and transaction in 48 C.C.No.5097/2017 J question in his income tax returns that itself sufficient to hold that, the complainant has no source of income and the accused has not received amount from the complainant cannot be acceptable one.
32. In order to rebut the presumptions available to the complainant and to substantiate the defence of the accused, the accused himself examined as DW.1 and the accused in his evidence stated that, the complainant approached him seeking to purchase the land owned by his relative at Bidadi and he has got mediated and the complainant purchased the said land on that contact the complainant approached him to purchase another land belongs to his relative is situated at Gowdahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk and thereafter he took the complainant to the said land and also called the owners of the land to the said land and there he has instructed to the complainant that, the said land ealier was in the name of his relative, but as per the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the year 200910 and the said land has been mentioned as "Sarakari Sendivana" and the complainant should have rectified it and after rectification of records the owners have agreed to sell the said land to the 49 C.C.No.5097/2017 J complainant thereafter the complainant agreed to purchase the said land after rectification of the documents from the competent authorities and the complainant has also agreed to purchase the said land for sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/ after verifing the documents and agreed to enter into sale agreement only after rectification of the revenue documents. The accused / DW1 also deposed that, at that time the complainant got suspicion on the land owners that, on the entering the names of the landlords in the records if the land owners or the accused sold the lands to some other third persons for that purpose the complainant demanded to issue signed blank cheque and blank stamp papers towards security purpose, for that, he had issued one blank singed cheque and signed blank stamp papers as security in favour of the complainant. The accused / DW1 further deposed that, the complainant called him and took him to the D.C. Office and where he has paid the amount to a person and he does not know the name of that person and thereafter he called the complainant over the phone, but the complainant did not received his calls during that time currency notes have been banned due to demonetization and finally he visited the house of 50 C.C.No.5097/2017 J the complainant and met him and explained the delay in getting the rectification of the documents from his side and he could not proceed with the regular agreement of sale, but at that time he informed the complainant to get the registered sale deed of the land in his favour. The accused / DW1 further deposed that, the complainant misused the cheque belongs to him and he came to know the said fact only after receiving the warrant from the court and has not received the legal notice from the complainant and he also enquired to the complainant over phone at that time the complainant informed him that, he had no money to purchase the land and agreed to sell the said land through third person by returning his money and the complainant has not paid any amount in his favour and till today the land in question is not sold to anybody and he is ready to mediate to get the registered sale deed in the name of complainant from the land owners and except the signature in the cheque in dispute the writings are not in his handwritings and Ex.C.10 was also not prepared in his presence and he has not executed the same in favour of the complainant.
33. The accused in order to substantiate his 51 C.C.No.5097/2017 J defence has not produced any documentary proof and has it is held in the above that, the legal notice issued by the complainant was presumed to be served on the accused and also held that, the accused has executed the Ex.C.10 in favour of the complainant and under the said agreement has issued the cheque in question to the complainant by agreeing to present the said cheque in the event of failure to execute the registered sale agreement by the land owners in respect of the sale transaction enumerated in Ex.C.10. It is also proved by the complainant that, he has paid an amount of Rs.9 lakhs to the accused i.e., Rs.8 lakhs by way of two cheques and Rs.1 lakh by way of cash, in such circumstance the oral evidence of the accused that too without their being documentary proof his evidence cannot be acceptable one.
34. As it is already held in the above that, the accused during the course of his crossexamination categorically admitted that, except the Ex.C.10 agreement he has not executed any other documents in favour of the complainant and also admitted issuance of cheque in question as postdated cheque under Ex.C.10 and also admitted that, he has not taken any action against the complainant and not 52 C.C.No.5097/2017 J issued notice to the complainant since he had executed Ex.C.10 agreement in favour of the complainant and issued the cheque to the complainant, therefore when the accused himself categorically admitted the execution of Ex.C.10 and issuance of cheque in question in favour of the complainant, the oral evidence of the accused cannot be acceptable one. In addition to that, the defence taken by the accused is taken into consideration in respect of issuance of blank cheque and two blank signed stamp papers in favour of the complainant towards security of the suspicion of the complainant as to whether the land owner may sell their lands to the third parties after getting correction of the land records, appears to be not acceptable one. If really the accused has not received the amount of Rs.9 lakhs from the complainant and has not executed the Ex.C.10 and has not issued the cheque in question to the complainant under the Ex.C.10, definitely the accused would have taken action against the complainant either by issuing notice to the complainant or by initiating any other legal action, but no such efforts have been made by the accused, in such circumstance the defence of the accused cannot be acceptable one. The conduct of 53 C.C.No.5097/2017 J the accused in nontaking of action for return of his alleged signed blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers or misuse of the blank signed cheque and blank signed stamp papers by the complainant may leads to draw an adverse inference against the accused that, in order to evade the liability of the accused to pay the cheque amount has taken such defence and the said defence cannot be acceptable one, on the contrary it can be held that, the cheque in question was issued by the accused towards repayment of the amount received by the accused from the complainant under Ex.C.10 not for any other reasons much more contended by the accused in his defence. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3601 in a case of T.P.Murugan(dead) Thr. Lrs.V. Bhojan Vs. Posa Nandi, rep. Thr. Lrs. PA holder, T.P. Murugan V. Bhojan, wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that "Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) Ss.118, 138, 139 - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption as to enforceable debt cheques allegedly issued by accused towards repayment of debt Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards 54 C.C.No.5097/2017 J repayment of loan back in 1995 - behavior of accused in allegedly issuing 10 blank cheques back in 1995 and never asking their return for 7 years, unnatural - Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote, presumption under S.139 would operate against him - Complainant proving existence of legally enforceable debt and issuance of cheques towards discharge of such debt Conviction, Proper." Hence by applying the above principles of law to the present facts of the case in the present case though the Accused had taken defence that, he had given his blank signed cheque and two stamp papers to the complainant towards security of the sale transaction in question and has not received any amount from the complainant, but the said defence has not been proved by the accused, therefore, it can be held that, the accused has not made any efforts to get return of the cheque in question and stamp papers alleged to have been given to the complainant for security of the alleged sale transaction, therefore, the said unnatural conduct of the accused in non taking of action may leads to draw an adverse inference against the 55 C.C.No.5097/2017 J accused that, the cheque in question issued by the accused towards discharge of the liability and presumption U/s.139 of N.I. Act would operate against him , as he has admitted signature and cheque in question is belongs to him.
35. It is relevant here to mention that, it is the specific defence of the accused that, he had given the subject cheque and stamp papers as blank signed cheque and stamp papers to the complainant towards security of alleged sale transaction in question to the complainant and has not received any amount from the complainant as advance earnest money on behalf of the land owners towards negotiation of in respect of sale of the property and the complainant had misused the said blank signed cheque and stamp papers and has filed this complainant against him, but the accused has not produced any documents to prove his defence on the contrary he has admitted the execution of Ex.C.10 i.e., agreement and also issuance of cheque in favour of the complainant and also admitted that, had not initiated any action against the complainant since he had executed Ex.C.10 and issued the cheque in question in favour of the complainant, therefore in such circumstances also it can construed as cheque 56 C.C.No.5097/2017 J in question was issued by the accused only towards discharge of the liability in question. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 235 in the case of Lale Patel Vs. Sharanabasappa., wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that : NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS ACT, 1881 section 138 - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds Plea of accused that he had given a blank cheque signed as security for a transaction and complainant filled up the contents and denied existence of any debt or loan - Conviction by Trial court Affirmed by Appellate Court - Revision against. In another decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that "
NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS Act, 1881 Section s138 and 139 - acquittal - If justified Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature eon it Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid Not supported by any evidence - Fact 57 C.C.No.5097/2017 J that date was printed, would not lend any evidence to case of accused Acquittal not proper. Hence the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decisions clearly held that, if the Accused has taken defence that, a blank signed cheque has been issued as a security for transaction and the complainant filled up the contents in the cheque and the accused denied the existence of debt or liability in such circumstances it is for the accused to prove his/her defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, if the Accused has failed to prove the same in such circumstances, it cannot be held that, the cheque in question was issued for the purpose of security in connection with the transaction. In the present case also the Accused has failed to establish his defence that, the cheque in question was issued towards security of the alleged sale transaction in question, under such circumstances the cheque so issued cannot be considered as the one issued as a security and the defence taken by the Accused is untenable one, in such circumstances by applying the principles of law laid down in the above decision the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one.58
C.C.No.5097/2017 J
36. It is relevant here to mention that, according to the defence of the Accused that, the complainant had collected his blank signed cheque at the time of negotiations were taken place in respect of purchase of the land from his relatives and thereafter by misusing the said cheque has field this complainant against him, but the complainant in his crossexamination has denied the said suggestions made to him. As it is already held in the above that, the Accused has failed to prove his defence that, the complainant had collected the alleged blank signed cheque from him, in such circumstances the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one. However, even for sake of discussion if it is assumed that, the contents of the subject cheque are not filled in by the Accused even under such circumstances also, unless and until the Accused has proved his defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, it cannot be held that, the contents of the cheque have been filled in by the complainant. In this regard, it is a relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India reported in AIR 2019 SC 2446 in the case of Birsingh Vs. Mukesh Kumar., wherein the Hon'ble 59 C.C.No.5097/2017 J apex Court held that, "presumption U/s.139 is presumption of law, distinguished from presumption of facts and also held that, presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with presumption of innocence which requires prosecution to prove case against the Accused and also held that obligation on the prosecution may discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumption of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing reasonable plausibility of non existence of presumed fact." In the present case though the Accused has denied the contents of the cheque in question except his signature, but he has failed to prove his defence or produced any documents or satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumptions as available U/s.139 of the N.I. Act, under such circumstances in view of the above principles of law, it can be presumed even on fact also that the complainant has proved his case by discharging his burden by complying the mandatory provisions. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex court has also held that, "presumption as to legally enforceable 60 C.C.No.5097/2017 J debt is rebuttable, the signed blank cheque if voluntarily presented to payee towards payment payee may fill up amount and other particulars and it in itself would not invalidate cheque and onus would still be on the accused to prove that, cheque was not issued or discharge of debt or liability by adducing evidence." In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "
Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is 61 C.C.No.5097/2017 J held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. In such circumstances even if it is assumed that, the complainant admitted that, the contents of cheque in question were filled in by him also in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decision that itself would not invalidates the cheque in question and it can be presumed that, the cheque was filled in by the complainant in presence of the Accused at his consent and the said cheque has been issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt.
37. It is also the defence of the accused that, the complainant had collected his blank signed cheque towards security of sale transaction in question and thereafter the said blank signed cheque is misused by the complainant by filing this false complaint, but the Accused himself has admitted that, the cheque in question belongs to his account and signature found at Ex.C.1 (a) is that of his signature. Once signature on the negotiable instrument act is admitted, in that circumstances sec. 20 of N.I. Act comes into play i.e. as per Sec. 20 of N.I.Act if the blank or incomplete Negotiable Instrument is given to the holder in due course, it is 62 C.C.No.5097/2017 J to be presumed that, he had given authority to the holder in due course to fill up the remaining portion. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2006 KAR 2054 in the case of H.S.Srinivasa Vs. Girijamma and another wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " a reading of sec.20 of the act which is extracted above reveals that, the words used are ' either wholly blank or having written therein an incomplete negotiable instrument' . The instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in a particular in either case, the holder has authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one. The authority implied by a signature to a blank instrument is so vide that, the party so signing is bound to be a holder in due course. Promissory notes are often executed in the name of the payer and left unfilled to be afterwards filled by the actual holder, the object being to enable the owner to pass it off to another without incurring the responsibility as an endorser. Thus, it is seen that, person in possession of an incomplete 63 C.C.No.5097/2017 J instrument in maternal particulars has the authority prima facie to fill it and thus the executants becomes liable to pay the amount due'. In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras reported in 2005 (1) DCR 85 in the case of P.A. Thamatharan Vs. Dalmia cements (B) Ltd., wherein it is held that " Negotiable Instrument Act 1991 - Sec. 138 - dishonour of cheque - plea
-body of cheque was not written by Accused - held it is not mandatory and no law prescribes that, the body of cheque should also be written by the signatory to the cheque, a cheque could be filled up anybody and if it is signed by the account holder of the cheque'. In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court to India reported in (2002) 7 SCC in the case of P.K. Manmadhan Karthra Vs.Sanjeeva Raj., wherein it is held that " As long as signature on the cheque is admitted, whether the ink with which the other particulars are filled up is different or that the hand writing is not that of drawer does not matter. Until rebutted, the presumption that, cheque was 64 C.C.No.5097/2017 J issued for consideration exists". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in a case of Crl. Appeal No. 1664/2003 C/w. Crl.Appeal No.1663/2003 dated: 18.6.2008 in the case of R.Mallikarjuna Vs. H.R.Sadashivaiah wherein the Hon'ble High Court at para No.19 held that " But, the question is, whether that renders instrument unenforceable. In this regard, it must be observed that, this court similar circumstances in the case of S.R. Muralidar Vs. Ashok G.Y. reported in 3001 (4) KAR. LJ K. 122 referring to the provisions of Sections 20, 138, 139, and 140 of the Act and after interpreting alteration and filling up of the cheque observed thus " The trial court has made much about the difference in ink. Admittedly, Accused cheque is issued bearing signature of the Accused. It is the contention of the defence that, blank cheques issued for the business transactions have been illegally converted as a subject matter to this case fastening false liability........ It is not objectionable or illegal in law to receive a 65 C.C.No.5097/2017 J inchoate negotiable instrument duly signed by the maker despite the material particulars are kept blank if done with an understanding and giving full authority to the payee to fill up the material contents as agreed upon. Such a course of action in law cannot vitiate the transaction nor can invalidate the negotiable instrument issued and such transaction fully begins the maker of the negotiable instrument to the extent it purports to declare........ The fact that, a document executed is inchoate with regard to some of the material particulars would not render such contract invalid nor make the instrument illegal or inadmissible. Voluntarily, if a person were to deliver an inchoate instrument authorizing the receiver to fill up the material contents as agreed upon, the cheque does not get tainted as in admissible nor it amounts to tampering with the material particulars...... In the present case there is no categorical defence version, it is only by conjunctures and surmises, a case is made out 66 C.C.No.5097/2017 J from the difference in ink between the signature of the cheque and the other handwritten contents. Therefore in view of the principles of law of Hon'ble Apex court of India and also Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Madras referred above, In the present case the Accused has admitted the signature on Negotiable Instrument i.e. cheque and he also admitted issuance of the cheque to the complainant, it is primafacie proof of authorizing the holder in due course i.e. the complainant to fill up the remaining contents of the Negotiable Instrument, therefore it cannot lie in the mouth of the Accused that, the complainant had misused or fabricated the cheque in question given by him and the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one as the instrument i.e., cheque in question cannot be rendered unenforceable merely because the contents have been filled by different ink, as it would not render such instrument illegal or inadmissible, the complainant certainly can base action on it.
38. It is also important to note here that, the Accused has not denied or disputed that the cheque in question as well as the signature therein do belong to him and he has failed to prove his defence 67 C.C.No.5097/2017 J i.e., the cheque in question came to the possession of the Complainant as contended by him in his defence, this would also give rise to an adverse inference against him. This preposition of law finds support from the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2010(1) KCCR 176 in the case of "Siddappa Vs. Manjappa". In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.A.No.664 of 2012 dated: 19.9.2019 in the case of "M.Abbas Haji Vs. T.M.Chennakeshava"
held that, " the Accused has to explain how the cheque entered into the hands of complainant".
Therefore for the above said reasons the defense taken by the accused cannot be acceptable one and accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant by adducing cogent and convincible evidence.
39. Therefore considering all these aspects of the case and totality of the circumstances and on careful and meticulous appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and accused the complainant has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that,he has paid an amount of Rs.9 lakhs to the accused i.e., an amount of Rs.6 68 C.C.No.5097/2017 J lakhs paid by way of cheque bearing No.000076 dated 07.04.2015 for sum of Rs.6 lakhs and another cheque bearing No.000077 dated 11.04.2015 for sum of Rs.2 lakhs and subsequently also paid Rs.1 lakh by way of cash towards advance amount for negotiating the necessary talks in respect of the sale of land bearing Sy.No.20/P1 measuring 4 acres situated at Gowdahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk by the land owners who are none other than the relatives of the accused and to that effect the accused has also executed a Deed Of Confirmation on 06.04.2015 as per Ex.C.10 for having receipt of the said amount of Rs.10 lakhs from the complainant and also issued the cheque in question i.e., Ex.C.1 for sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the complainant and also acknowledged receipt of Rs.1 lakh in cash in Ex.C.10 in favour of the complainant and also agreed to present the said cheque in the event of failure of the land lords in executing the regular sale agreement in favour of the complainant, thereafter the land lords have not executed the regular sale agreement in favour of the complainant, hence the Ex.C.1 cheque was issued towards the discharge of liability in question and as per the instructions of the accused has presented the said cheque through 69 C.C.No.5097/2017 J his banker and same was returned dishonoured with an endorsement of "Funds Insufficient" and thereafter he got issued legal notice to the accused and the said notice was duly served on the Accused, inspite of it, the Accused did not repaid cheque amount, hence the complainant filed the present complaint against the accused. On the other hand, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant with regard to the existence of legally recoverable debt under Ex.C.1 Cheque. Therefore accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act, accordingly for the above said reasons this point is answered in the Affirmative.
40. Point No.2: Negotiable Instrument Act was enacted to bring credibility to the cheque and the very purpose of enactment is to promote the use of negotiable instrument, while to discourage the issuance of cheque without having sufficient funds in their accounts. Such being the case the intention of the legislature is that, complainant be suitable compensated while accused be punished for his act. Hence while awarding the compensation the said fact is to be kept in mind and suitable compensation 70 C.C.No.5097/2017 J is awarded to the complainant certainly it will not cause injustice to the accused, accordingly the complainant is entitled for the compensation as ordered by the court and for the said reasons, it is just and proper to pass the following : ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.9,15,000/= (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Fifteen Thousand only) within one month from the date of order, in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of (2) two months for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on recovery, a sum of Rs.9,10,000/= (Rupees Nine Lakhs and Ten Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/= (Rupees Five Thousand only) shall be defrayed as prosecution 71 C.C.No.5097/2017 J expenses to the state.
The Bail bond of the Accused stands cancelled.
Cash security deposited by the accused is hereby ordered to be returned to the accused (if not lapsed) after appeal period is over.
Office is directed to furnish free certified copy of this judgment to the Accused incompliance of Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Directly dictated to the stenographer online, printout taken by her, verified, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd September 2021).
(SRI.S.B. HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Complainant: P.W.1 : Sri. S. Narayana Gowda P.W.2 : Sri. Manjunath B. R., Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda.
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Complainant: Ex.C.1 : Original Cheque Ex.C.1(a) : Signature of the accused Ex.C.2 : Bank challan Ex.C.3 : Bank Memo Ex.C.4 : Legal Notice 72 C.C.No.5097/2017 J Ex.C.5 : Postal receipt Ex.C.6 : Returned Legal Notice Ex.C.7 : Postal Cover Ex.C.8 : Postal Receipt Ex.C.9 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.C.10 : Original Deed of Confirmation of the Earnest Money Ex.C.10(a) to (c): Signatures of the accused Ex.C.11 : Bank Pass Book Ex.C.12 & 13 : Certified copies of cheques Ex.C.12(a)&12(a): Signatures and mobile numbers in the back side of the cheques
3. List of witness/s examined on behalf of the Accused: DW.1 : Sri. K. N. Raghavendra
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the Accused: Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed (SRI.S.B.HANDRAL), XVI ACMM, Bengaluru City.
73C.C.No.5097/2017 J 02.09.2021 Case called out, Counsel for the complainant and complainant absent. Accused and Counsel for the accused present, Judgment pronounced since the fine amount and default sentence is only imposed against the Accused, no separate sentence is imposed against the Accused vide separate judgment, ORDER Acting U/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.
the accused is convicted for the offence punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
The accused is sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs.9,15,000/=
(Rupees Nine Lakhs and
Fifteen Thousand only) within
one month from the date of order,
in default he shall under go
simple imprisonment for a period
of (2) two months for the offence
74
C.C.No.5097/2017 J
punishable U/sec.138 of N.I.Act.
Further acting U/sec.357(1) of
Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount on
recovery, a sum of Rs.9,10,000/=
(Rupees Nine Lakhs and Ten
Thousand only) shall be paid
as compensation to the
complainant.
Further acting U/sec.357(1)(a)
of Cr.P.C. out of fine amount on
recovery a sum of Rs.5,000/=
(Rupees Five Thousand only)
shall be defrayed as prosecution
expenses to the state.
The Bail bond of the Accused
stands cancelled.
Cash security deposited by the
accused is hereby ordered to be
returned to the accused (if not
lapsed) after appeal period is
over.
Office is directed to furnish free
certified copy of this judgment to
the Accused incompliance of
Sec.363(1) of Cr.P.C.
XVI ACMM, B'luru.
75
C.C.No.5097/2017 J